Glock, Inc.

B-414401 Jun 05, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Glock, Inc., of Smyrna, Georgia, protests the decision by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, not to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-15-R-0002, which was issued for the evaluation and purchase of a modular handgun system (MHS). The protester alleges that the RFP did not permit the agency to make fewer than two awards after the first phase of the evaluation, and that the award after that evaluation to only one entity, Sig Sauer, Inc., of Newington, New Hampshire, was therefore improper. Glock also asserts that the Army evaluated proposals unequally by improperly waiving a key subfactor evaluation for Sig Sauer. The protester further challenges the agency's evaluations of its own technical proposal and Sig Sauer's price proposal. We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Glock, Inc. File:  B-414401 Date:  June 5, 2017 John F. Renzulli, Esq., Scott C. Allan, Esq., and Michael R. Patrick, Esq., Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, for the protester. W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Ethan E. Marsh, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., R. Locke Bell, Esq., and Cynthia O. Akatugba, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the intervenor, Sig Sauer, Inc.  Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Jason Guiliano, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the solicitation required the agency to make at least two awards after the initial evaluation phase is denied, where the solicitation did not require this outcome.  Instead, the agency reasonably determined that a single award was in the best interest of the government, where proposals were technically proximate and the protester’s proposed price was substantially higher than the awardee’s price. 2.  Protest that the agency failed to complete the second phase evaluation is dismissed as premature, where the record shows that the agency has properly awarded only those portions of the contract awardable under the first phase of the evaluation. 3.  Protest that the agency unequally evaluated proposals by waiving an evaluation subfactor for the awardee’s design is denied, where the waiver was not prejudicial to the protester. 4.  Protest that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was flawed is denied, where any errors were not prejudicial to the protester. DECISION Glock, Inc., of Smyrna, Georgia, protests the decision by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, not to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-15-R-0002, which was issued for the evaluation and purchase of a modular handgun system (MHS).  The protester alleges that the RFP did not permit the agency to make fewer than two awards after the first phase of the evaluation, and that the award after that evaluation to only one entity, Sig Sauer, Inc., of Newington, New Hampshire, was therefore improper.  Glock also asserts that the Army evaluated proposals unequally by improperly waiving a key subfactor evaluation for Sig Sauer.  The protester further challenges the agency’s evaluations of its own technical proposal and Sig Sauer’s price proposal. We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part.  BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on August 28, 2015, under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, and subsequently amended it six times.  RFP at 2; Memorandum of Law (MOL)/Contracting Officer’s Statement of Fact (COSF) at 2.[1]  The RFP anticipated two evaluations, one under section M and, after initial award, one under section H, prior to award of the MHS production contract line item numbers (CLINs).  RFP at 2.  In relevant part, the RFP summarized the procurement as follows: The Government intends to award up to three (3) Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts based on the results of the initial evaluation of the proposal submission by following the evaluation procedure contained in section M of this RFP.  The Government will then make a final down-selection to a single contractor by following the evaluation procedures contained in section H of this RFP.  Id.  The solicitation in section M anticipated awards to acquire the weapons component package for further testing under the second phase of the evaluation, set forth in section H of the RFP.  After completing the section H evaluation, the Army would select one of the proposals for first article testing and full production.  Id.  The period of performance is 10 years for the handgun and accessories and 5 years for the ammunition.  Id. ...